2010-11-30_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 Mr. Schwartz commented on the process, from a city staff perspective, on how to clearly 2 differentiate between the two firms through meeting with the key people of a firm; noting that it 3 was quite traditional to interview prospective firms once the field had been narrowed, which 4 served for clarification for all parties and identifying those items still needing specific 5 clarification and/or by observing their approach in solving those issues. 6 7 Further discussion included whether to interview one or both firms. 8 9 Member Von De Linde opined that the creativity of a firm was very important, and in her review 10 of Barr and EOR, she thought EOR showed more creativity and may provide fresh, new or 11 different ideas to lead into change. While Barr's familiarity with the GLWMO provided a high 12 ranking, the spirit of interest and enthusiasm expressed by EOR, as well as their creativity added 13 more credence to their (EOR's) proposal. 14 15 Member Manzara noted that EOR had more experience working with WMO's and that may 16 indicate their flexibility. However, she noted that Barr had intimate knowledge of specific issues 17 in the catchment, given their past experience with the GLWMO. Member Manzara opined that if 18 the Board decided on interviews, she wanted specific information from both firms detailing 19 stakeholder involvement within the plan. 20 21 Member Eckman opined that a fresh point of view may be of value to the process and result in a 22 more successful end result. 23 24 Ms. Lewis suggested that, in looking at schedules and the stakeholder involvement process from 25 start to finish, meetings scheduled for November or December of 2010 were not realistic, and 26 made an assumption that it would be necessary to shift the entire schedule by two /three months, 27 making the schedules of both firms a little more similar. Ms. Lewis noted that the question she 28 received from consultants interested in the RFP was most often related to the proposed timeline, 29 given the current time of the year that proposals were written. 30 31 Additional discussion among members was the realities of an actual timeframe, and if the plan 32 was wrapped up in 2011, it would have been a great accomplishment for the GLWMO. 33 34 Board members concurred on the value of an interview and discussed possible dates and times 35 for such interviews. 36 37 Member Eckman suggested interviewing EOR to nail down a more realistic schedule and 38 determine any additional potential costs, in addition to clarifying stakeholder involvement 39 strategies. At that point, Member Eckman suggested that consideration could be given to 40 interviewing Ban if there appeared to be significant or irresolvable issues. 41 42 Mr. Petersen suggested that Members consider how they intended to cover the additional 43 $50,000 for creation of the plan as proposed by Barr, without soliciting additional funds from 44 member cities. Mr. Petersen reviewed his experience in administering the Capitol Region 45 Watershed District's First Generation Plan, and the amount and quality of thought and input 46 brought into the process by EOR, Capitol Region's consultant, including stakeholder